Here's the California Energy Commission STILL saying it. SInce 2010 has passed, as of 2012 they pushed the "underwater by" date to 2050: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012p...
Perhaps you could point out where they say anything similar to "San Francisco will be underwater by 2050". What I've found are comments that, essentially, extreme tide-related flooding events would become more frequent and last longer.
Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".
For the life of me I can't figure why you'd use that to support your claim that Asians don't suffer from racism...
(I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the Insightful moderation. I say this because I want it to be clear that what follows is not an attempt to undermine that insight.)
It's very often those same three steps: (a) Deny it happened; (b) Admit something happened, but ask people to wait before passing judgment; (d) Delay; and finally (e) Admit the whole thing, but claim that the time for a response has already passed.
But I think it's kind of dumb to think that in a city with tens or hundreds of thousands of cars idling daily in traffic for the past 70 years, that 500 busses making a single trip is going to have a more negative impact than if leaders don't hear some kind of voice for change.
The criticism also assumes that those 500 buses wouldn't have been doing anything else at the time.
And other posters here are right: the last thing you need is a weapon that fails when you need it most. If you want a weapon that's safe at rest, get a gun safe with a fingerprint scanner so you can get at it quickly when needed.
I don't see how this safe removes "one more thing that could fail" from the equation. If this fingerprint-scanning gun safe is reliable enough for a gun owner to insert into the process of potentially shooting someone, why is it assumed this on-gun technology will be a huge liability no matter what?
Early Tuesday, gamers woke up to find out that they couldn't log in to any Sony Online Entertainment games--no Everquest, no Planetside 2, none of them.
Could the users have used another server to connect with each other?
Not much of a gamer, I take it? Most, if not all, of the games affected are not peer-to-peer style multiplayer games; they're MMOs. There's no matchmaking servers involved here.
I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.
Am I allowed to point how very wrong this particular belief of yours appears to be in reality, or is that off limits?
no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???
I find this to be quite bizarre; this notion that all "scary" alternatives are somehow unreasonable and only non-scary alternatives qualify as reasonable.
Why would you ask for a citation for his statement and not include one for yours?
Because my claim wasn't made in support of a particular argument. Also, are you suggesting that one needs to provide evidence that there might be something wrong with a prior claim before the person who made that prior claim is required to support it? Pff...
Look, China puts out over 33% of the emissions today AND RISING. And America is at 15% and dropping.
This is deceiving. It implies that all countries should have equal emissions, regardless of the size of their population. While it's true that China's emissions are increasing (which is bad) and the United States' emissions are decreasing (which is good), as of 2010 the United States still puts out 3x the amount of CO2 as China on a per-capita basis (source).
Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.
No real way to put this consensus to the test, is there?
Actually, that's the purpose of all that sciency stuff they do. I suppose we could just sit around and see what happens, though. But that's kind of like waiting to see if that car driving toward you on the wrong side of the road actually hits you before you decide to make an attempt to avoid it.
We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.
So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.
The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the California Energy Commission STILL saying it. SInce 2010 has passed, as of 2012 they pushed the "underwater by" date to 2050:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012p...
Perhaps you could point out where they say anything similar to "San Francisco will be underwater by 2050". What I've found are comments that, essentially, extreme tide-related flooding events would become more frequent and last longer.
Here's an "underwater San Francisco" map that GW alarmists were circulating in 1997:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/art...
Asked about the effect on California, professor of climatology at the University of California at Berkeley Orman Granger said in 1997:
There's no date associated with the image. I skimmed the article, though, so I may have missed a non-explicit prediction.
Hint: it ain't the skin-color. If "whitey" really were racist, Asians would've suffered from it too. But they are doing rather well. So well, in fact, that schools and colleges alike deduct points from applicants, who identify themselves as "Asians".
For the life of me I can't figure why you'd use that to support your claim that Asians don't suffer from racism...
(I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the Insightful moderation. I say this because I want it to be clear that what follows is not an attempt to undermine that insight.)
It's very often those same three steps: (a) Deny it happened; (b) Admit something happened, but ask people to wait before passing judgment; (d) Delay; and finally (e) Admit the whole thing, but claim that the time for a response has already passed.
Man... Three steps: a, b, d, and e?
The Constitution allowed slavery, for instance, and no vote for women.
It did no such thing, it simply reserved such matters to the States, per the 10th Amendment.
So what you're saying is that the Constitution allowed slavery.
But I think it's kind of dumb to think that in a city with tens or hundreds of thousands of cars idling daily in traffic for the past 70 years, that 500 busses making a single trip is going to have a more negative impact than if leaders don't hear some kind of voice for change.
The criticism also assumes that those 500 buses wouldn't have been doing anything else at the time.
And other posters here are right: the last thing you need is a weapon that fails when you need it most. If you want a weapon that's safe at rest, get a gun safe with a fingerprint scanner so you can get at it quickly when needed.
I don't see how this safe removes "one more thing that could fail" from the equation. If this fingerprint-scanning gun safe is reliable enough for a gun owner to insert into the process of potentially shooting someone, why is it assumed this on-gun technology will be a huge liability no matter what?
Default Linux installs just work...
There's no such thing as "default Linux".
Obligatory xkcd: Meteor.
The shooter of the judge and congresswomen in Arizona was also blamed on conservatives (even though it turned out the guy was a liberal.)
One person seems to have described him as radically liberal, another as neutral, but he was registered Independent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner#Views_on_politics
Meanwhile important stories NOT appearing on Slashdot...
Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, by the Numbers
This is the story referenced by the submitted CNN story.
If you read the message, you may have noticed that he called the code shit, not any person coding it.
The code didn't write itself...
I don't think black box data will be much use, they were shipped out to Russia within hours of the crash...
Actually, they were recently handed over to Malaysian officials: MH17 crash: Rebels hand over black boxes.
Could the users have used another server to connect with each other?
Not much of a gamer, I take it? Most, if not all, of the games affected are not peer-to-peer style multiplayer games; they're MMOs. There's no matchmaking servers involved here.
I know this will get modded down pretty quickly on Slashdot. This site is notoriously intolerant of the faithful, but that doesn't make it right. Have fun modding me down troll, just keep in mind you're doing it for the same reasons sectarian bigotry happens all over the world. No one thinks they're a bigot while they're being a bigot. And if you're teaching your kids this mentality at home? Shame on you.
Am I allowed to point how very wrong this particular belief of yours appears to be in reality, or is that off limits?
Should just rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution now to read, "We the Corporations of the United States..."
Apparently we're taking the much easier route of redefining "People" to include artificial legal entities...
no no no, couldnt be, we have to go with the scary version, we cant go using reasonable options, how will anyone get funding for research???
I find this to be quite bizarre; this notion that all "scary" alternatives are somehow unreasonable and only non-scary alternatives qualify as reasonable.
Why would you ask for a citation for his statement and not include one for yours?
Because my claim wasn't made in support of a particular argument. Also, are you suggesting that one needs to provide evidence that there might be something wrong with a prior claim before the person who made that prior claim is required to support it? Pff...
...as X (per-capita gun ownership and frequency of carry) has gone up...
Can you provide a citation for this? A quick search indicates that gun ownership in the U.S. has actually been declining.
Look, China puts out over 33% of the emissions today AND RISING. And America is at 15% and dropping.
This is deceiving. It implies that all countries should have equal emissions, regardless of the size of their population. While it's true that China's emissions are increasing (which is bad) and the United States' emissions are decreasing (which is good), as of 2010 the United States still puts out 3x the amount of CO2 as China on a per-capita basis (source).
Warming on other planets (if such is indeed the case) does not answer the question of whether there is AGW on Earth. It would just invalidate the argument that we have ruled out N(atural)GW.
Yes, it would; but it's not the case. At least not to the extend that denialists claim, or in any way that even hints at a common cause: What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system
If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here...
There is no reliable evidence that this is even happening. What climate change is happening to other planets in the solar system?
No real way to put this consensus to the test, is there?
Actually, that's the purpose of all that sciency stuff they do. I suppose we could just sit around and see what happens, though. But that's kind of like waiting to see if that car driving toward you on the wrong side of the road actually hits you before you decide to make an attempt to avoid it.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC.
We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.
So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.
The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.
Well, I would say that it's because most people don't want to legislate behavior based on bad science, but that's obviously not true...
Most people can't tell good science from pseudo-science. That seems the more likely reason why no one wants to do anything...
Wait, the graph shows humans caused global cooling between 1890 and 1920? How did we do that?
Those are just expected results based on climate models. All that tells us is that our current models aren't 100% accurate, but we already knew that.